Antifreeze does not taste like candy. The only reason I know this is because I somehow managed sticking my hand in my mouth somehow after having handled antifreeze. It sure as smells like burnt syrup though.

Can someone go to jail for recommending the drinking of poison, fully knowing it's poison?

No.

Also, nothing I have said is not true.

Antifreeze tastes lake candy.

It has an alcohol-like intoxicating effect.

Druggernaut should drink it.

What if two guys are at a party, one of them is drunk, and the other suggests he drink anti-freeze. The drunk guy's like "*burp* Is that safe?" And the other guy's all, "YEAH! Give it a whirl!" fully knowing that it'll kill him. Drunk guy does, and he dies. Crime?

I get the "eat shit and die" joke, but is there a line between stuff that's obviously bad for you and stuff that's a little more esoterically deadly? I mean, society's already making a big deal out of cyber-bullying leading to teen suicides. But THIS would be, like, direct manipulation leading to death.

Not accusing. Just asking. Cuz I imagined druggernaut actually being stupid enough to try it, then investigators seeing Tuffy's comment on the screen. It seems that in some situations, it could lead to an investigation of intent.

Nah, I'd say you can manipulate anyone to do anything. Anyone is capable of any choice. They just need to be put in the right situation under the right circumstances. But whose fault is it if someone else consciously puts them in that situation? Could you really blame the person who "made" the decision?

I'd say it comes down to consistency. If the person would continue to make that decision in the majority of situations, then yes. But if it was only in that rare situation that he made that decision, then it would be the fault of the person that put them there.

If the person would continue to make that decision in the majority of situations, then yes. But if it was only in that rare situation that he made that decision, then it would be the fault of the person that put them there.

Wiki: Some ethylene glycol antifreeze contains an embittering agent such as denatonium to help discourage either accidental or deliberate consumption.

Fun Fact! Embittering agents (such as denatonium benzoate) used to make fair-tasting poisons foul, must by law be completely safe for human consumption. That's right; you can't put poison in your poison to keep people from becoming poisoned.

It was actually a really good dish. It was these sort of fat noodles with tomatoes and the peppers and lots of other stuff he grew in his garden in in it. Some years ago, I mostly remember the peppers.

It was a good little party though. In his backyard, which was like a jungle of a vegetable garden, literally. Most of the plants were taller than the people and there were just these paths winding through them and a sprinkler up on a pole giving it all a rain forest effect. Keg of locally brewed IPA, that he traded homemade candles for at the brewery, in a fridge in the garage with a hole drilled in the door of the fridge for the pump. Finished off the night with him running out into the back yard in a pair of tie dyed long underwear someone just delivered him then he fell over and passed out.

That guy is a prick though. I don't talk to him anymore. But I feel sorry for him nonetheless.

Wiki: Some ethylene glycol antifreeze contains an embittering agent such as denatonium to help discourage either accidental or deliberate consumption.

Fun Fact! Embittering agents (such as denatonium benzoate) used to make fair-tasting poisons foul, must by law be completely safe for human consumption. That's right; you can't put poison in your poison to keep people from becoming poisoned.

That is the best fact ever! I feel like I need to find some people to go run and tell right now.

If the person would continue to make that decision in the majority of situations, then yes. But if it was only in that rare situation that he made that decision, then it would be the fault of the person that put them there.

"Objection. Calls for speculation, Your Honor."

"Sustained."

I didn't mean it as legal matter in that philosophical argument, but it could potentially be. There're ways of proving patterns of behavior. There're ways of convincing a jury that anyone put in that situation would respond similarly. Hell, if the perpetrator/victim was a minor, it would definitely be the fault of manipulator, even in a legal setting. Kids are assumed to be stupid. But what about stupid adults?

I'd assumed we were not considering minors in this case as they aren't as a rule held accountable for their actions.

If we're talking purely moral argument, then if I said "Hey, Druggernaut, antifreeze is delicious and will get you high," and he went out to the garage and drank a bottle, then I would be morally culpable. Absolutely.

If we are looking at legal grounds, I'm pretty sure having as a screen name "Druggernaut" could be just one tiny link in the chain of establishing an individual's pattern of moronic and self-destructive behavior.

Aha! So you KNEW he was too stupid to know antifreeze was actually poisonous! Shame on you, Tuff.

Anyway, yeah, it could go back to Milgram's experiment. It was entirely up to the individual, but still, circumstances overruled "normal" behavior (for the majority of people, anyway). What if it was just some guy in a labcoat, and there WERE actually people dying?

Normally, just because someone told you to, you wouldn't kill someone. You know it's wrong. You've been told your entire life that it's wrong. But under the proper conditions, the majority of people would. All it took was some guy in a lab coat, and they could ignore the screams of pain they were causing all the way to the point that the screams silenced. It was entirely their choice to participate, but they kept going, justifying it in their heads.

This reminds me last night i watched that episode of Intervention where she huffs air-duster because i heard it was the worst episode of all. Yes, it was pretty awful. It was sad and funny and scary but sad. That chick was crazy, for real. She acted possessed. **sucks on air-duster**

Normally, just because someone told you to, you wouldn't kill someone. You know it's wrong. You've been told your entire life that it's wrong. But under the proper conditions, the majority of people would. All it took was some guy in a lab coat, and they could ignore the screams of pain they were causing all the way to the point that the screams silenced. It was entirely their choice to participate, but they kept going, justifying it in their heads.

Honestly, I can't say I have enough in-depth knowledge of the experiments to know for sure, but it seems to me (and I'm going to speculate about human nature here) that two factors were at play that Milgram should have taken care to separate. Subjects were repeatedly told that they had to press the button and complete the tests and they were repeatedly reassured that they would face no punishment. Milgram interpreted this to mean that people would tend to do what Authority told them to even if it ran contrary to their nature, but those who take an even dimmer view of humanity could interpret it to mean that, given half a chance, we would zap each other to death as long as 1) it were easy enough, and 2) we thought we wouldn't go to jail. The Stanford Prison experiment may (or many not) be interpreted to support this.

Once the test subject has it in their head that they are causing pain to another, and they are stuck in this little room themselves, with a cold authority figure insisting the go on, there could be a fear in there that if they do not go on the tables may be turned and something bad will happen to themselves. Sacrificing an unseen stranger seems easier than finding out if they could become the one in pain if they don't go on, sort of deal.

The whole thing reminds me of what happened in room 101 at the end of 1984 for some reason.

Yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it. Milgram did take it into account. The whole thing was a look into the mindset of Nazis justifying their acts by saying they were just following orders. So yeah, of course it was taken into account that they were repeatedly told to do it and that there would be no consequences. Which interestingly leads back to exactly what I was saying before. If one says, or implies, that a decision, like drinking antifreeze, would have no consequences, and said it often enough, they're creating a similar scenario. What would put the icing on the cake is if you claimed to have some manner of authority in the realm of biochemistry. That would be your labcoat, and I think people would put the blame on you, as you would have recreated the same scenario that caused many people to go against their own nature (if we're not going with the dimmer view you mentioned) and do something... wrong.

This reminds me last night i watched that episode of Intervention where she huffs air-duster because i heard it was the worst episode of all. Yes, it was pretty awful. It was sad and funny and scary but sad. That chick was crazy, for real. She acted possessed. **sucks on air-duster**

I seem to remember someone from that show was in a YouTube video. She said something like she's walking on sunshine or it smells like sunshine or something and the song "Walking On Sunshine" is playing in the background.

Wow, I'm pretty sure that we've suggested a lot of dumb shit to a lot of dumb shits on here.

That's not fair, Sarah. Smart suggestions have been made too. If it weren't for this website, no one would know that Survivor had that hidden ending in the spine that you have to tear the book apart to find.

Important Disclaimer: Although this is Chuck Palahniuk’s official website, we are in essence, more an official ‘fansite.’ Chuck Palahniuk himself does not own nor run this website. Nor did he create it. It was started by Dennis Widmyer, who is the webmaster and editor of most of the content. Chuck Palahniuk himself should not be held accountable nor liable for any of the content posted on this website. The opinions expressed in the news updates, content pages and message boards are not the opinions of Chuck Palahniuk nor his publishers. If you are trying to contact Chuck Palahniuk, sending emails to this website will not get you there. You should instead, take the more professional route of contacting his publicist at Doubleday.